11/21/2012

We’re still working on the site. I have a pretty good post about a Daily Caller article that I can’t publish because I currently cannot upload images, and I have to get to work. So it’s another open thread — but it’s the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, so it’s bound to be a slow news day anyway.

310 Responses to “Open Thread”

This has me really looking forward to 2016:

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

Marco Rubio: I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.

Q: Senator, if one of your daughters asked you—and maybe they already have—“Daddy, did god really create the world in 6 days?,” what would you say?

A: What I’ve said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it … it may not be 24-hour days, and that’s what I believe. I know there’s always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don’t, and I think it’s a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I’m a part. My belief is that the story that the Bible tells about God creating this magnificent Earth on which we live—that is essentially true, that is fundamentally true. Now, whether it happened exactly as we might understand it reading the text of the Bible: That, I don’t presume to know.

Now Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, says the turkey pardon has got to go.
“It makes light of the mass slaughter of some 46 million gentle, intelligent birds and portrays the United States’ president as being in some sort of business partnership with the turkey-killing industry,” Newkirk wrote in a letter sent to President Obama today. “Turkeys do not need to be ‘pardoned’-they are not guilty of anything other than being born into a world of prejudice. They are innocents who should be respected for who they are: good mothers, smart birds, and interesting animals.”
“You understand so well that African-Americans, women, and members of the LGBT community have been poorly served throughout history,” Newkirk writes, “and now I am asking you to consider other living beings who are ridiculed, belittled, and treated as if their sentience, feelings, and very natures count for nothing.”

if you say the earth is billions of years old what happens is a ton of republicans won’t vote for you cause you is against the bible

Not true. But it is true that if you dare question, ever so lightly, the religious doctrine that there is no God, and the world happened all by itself billions of years ago, then all the lefties who would never have voted for you anyway won’t vote for you, and will tell everyone that you’re crazy. Well, screw them. We should refuse to play their game. We should be in their faces asking them why exactly Rubio’s careful, rational answer is crazy, while 0bama’s identical answer was “thoughtful”. Challenge them to say outright that the Bible is a pack of lies and religious people are crazy and shouldn’t be allowed to vote. And then publicise their answers and show them to be the crazies. Because most Americans do believe in the Bible, and don’t think it’s crazy.

While it was admittedly a “gotcha” question, someone on the Senate Science Committee could have said “billions of years, but I’m not exactly sure” without all of the bible-pandering bullshit. I learned how old the Earth was in seventh grade. Him saying “I’m not qualified to answer that” is ridiculous. If he’s not qualified to answer that, he should resign from the Committee.

This was a GQ profile, not a political piece, so he couldn’t simply refuse to answer any questions that had nothing to do with politics. His views on rap music are also not relevant to politics, but he spoke on that anyway, because it was that kind of interview. So how could he have dodged this question any better than he did?

By not bringing up something completely irrelevant to the question, like the bible and “theologians?” What the hell do theologians have to do with the age of the Earth? This is why team R is losing, people. You have ignoramuses talking about “real rape” and the bible when the whole world sees that real science brings you internet porn.

It’s their job to figure out what God meant when He told us how and when He made it. You’d think that would be relevant. If your car’s manufacturer tells you it was made in a certain year, don’t you think that’s relevant?

You have ignoramuses talking about “real rape”

What’s ignorant about the difference between real rape (“rape rape”) and things that are called rape but aren’t?

“Why can’t there be a socially liberal, fiscally conservative Republican”

carlitos – You have to define what you mean by socially liberal, because in a lot of cases what are considered socially liberal issues directly conflict with fiscal conservatism. In other cases socially liberal causes mean excessive government regulation. We already have anti-discrimination laws on the books, but now we have extra-special categories of people and hate crime laws that treat different types of people in a disparate manner. So I have a problem with just slinging the term out there without defining what you mean with examples. Sex and weed don’t do it for me.

Well i recall Charlton Heston’s voiceover of ‘Jurassic Park,’ where he pointed out the earth being billions of years old, and the relative fraction of time, that mankind has been around, it puts into perspective, the delusion about AGW,

Carlitos, what’s wrong with Palin? She’s not a social liberal, but why should she be? She’s not into interfering with people’s private lives, so what difference should her social views make to you or anyone else? What conceivable objection could a social liberal have to her? And yet we saw how she was treated.

There’s nothing libertarian about abortion, or about redefining marriage. And why should Christianity “help”? You seem to be proceeding from the position that atheism is the default, and religious people should apologise for and justify their existence. That we should put up atheist candidates, or ones who can pass for atheist, and treat their religion as an embarrassing private foible. Forget it. This is a religious country, and religious people should be able to hold their heads high. Especially in the Republican Party.

Why don’t you tell us what you mean by that last sentence. And tell us exactly why Palin is not the perfect candidate you’re looking for.

Carlitos, this is a religious country, founded by and for religious people. “And this be our motto: In God is our trust.” Atheism is the exception here, the weird belief that has to hide itself in shame. How many political candidates admit their atheism in public? 0bama pretends to be a Xian because he knows he’d lose if he didn’t. So why are you advocating that Republicans nominate atheists, or that Republican candidates pretend to be atheists?

There’s nothing libertarian about legal abortion, any more than there is about legal burglary or legal rape. The entire purpose of government is to protect people from the initiation of force, and abortion is the biggest initiation of force possible. Abortion is no more your private business than is mugging or pickpocketing.

And how the law defines marriage is certainly not anybody’s private business. By definition it is government business.

founded by and for religious people. “And this be our motto: In God is our trust.”

Appeal to Tradition, a logical fallacy.

Atheism is the exception here, the weird belief that has to hide itself in shame. How many political candidates admit their atheism in public? 0bama pretends to be a Xian because he knows he’d lose if he didn’t.

Appeal to Popularity, a logical fallacy.

So why are you advocating that Republicans nominate atheists, or that Republican candidates pretend to be atheists?

I’m advocating that people use science, and that Republicans stop appealing to the ignorance and bigotry of the religious right to get a bit less than half the vote (and less in four years). Long-term, it’s a losing strategy. It doubly offends me because it forces intelligent people to pretend not to understand the world around them.

There’s nothing libertarian about legal abortion, any more than there is about legal burglary or legal rape. The entire purpose of government is to protect people from the initiation of force, and abortion is the biggest initiation of force possible. Abortion is no more your private business than is mugging or pickpocketing.

Abortion is force used against a clump of cells. You could make the same argument against liposuction, in the extreme.

And how the law defines marriage is certainly not anybody’s private business. By definition it is government business.

If that’s the case, then the government shouldn’t be able to discriminate against gay people. But it does, so it’s wrong.

… Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion … which is what you want it to do. Your religious beliefs and the practices they establish are not a proper basis for law in the good old USA. In the Talibanic USA, why, of course they are. You don’t want an abortion, don’t have one. Don’t want to marry a gay, don’t. Let your neighbors go to their own hells in peace, as they should let you.

htom, I don’t think anyone gives a rip about gays marrying, they just don’t want their church to be sued for refusing to marry gays. And please don’t tell me they won’t try. Look what they’re now teaching in elementary schools under the guise of tolerance.

htom and carlitos–thanks for at least trying to make some sense of this and asking people to think.

This why Republicans lose. Republicans lose because a vocal minority in the party dictates extremist positions in the primary and forces all R candidates to “go there” as a litmus test in what appears to many of us on the right (and much of the rest of the populace) to be a stupid and insincere flip flop from their previously stated positions (which it is). Then “we” put a wholly impossible to ever achieve Constitutional amendment plank in our platform and do it consistently for twenty years which touches all R candidates who are running in local, state, and federal elections across the country –and when anyone asks about it (say in a debate or editorial board session, townhall) we say “look! a squirrel.” Then, “we” go into the general election thinking that independent women, blacks, Hispanics, gays, and everyone under 35 should just overlook those positions because we are so totally right on the fiscal issues.

Does anyone even deny that the religious right exhibit ignorance and bigotry? It’s kind of their whole reason for being, isn’t it?

Carlitos, there are indeed those who on the right who exhibit ignorance and bigotry, yes. However, I would suggest that asking your second question evidences ignorance and bigotry are exhibited on the left of right as well.

Evan Sayet describes the moral and ethical decay passed along to our children by liberals in our culture… “You see, if mankind lost paradise when we ate the apple and gained knowledge of right and wrong they believe that if they can just force us all to regurgitate the apple, give up on knowledge of right and wrong, we can return to paradise. So let’s start with some of the bullet points of what we need to revisit.

First and foremost, to understand how the modern liberal thinks. I got – I borrowed a line from Professor Allan Bloom in his brilliant “The Closing of the American Mind.” And if there are any liberals watching at home, if there – are there any liberals in the room? Yes, good, okay, well I promise not to be condescending, all right. Condescending means to talk down to people.

See, Professor Bloom was trying to figure out why suddenly in the 80s his students were suddenly so stupid. Okay, he didn’t use the word “stupid;” he’s a lot more diplomatic than I am. He had been teaching since the 50s and the 50s, 60s, 70s and the 80s, he said that what he received from the public schools, from the primary schools were what he called scholars.
All right, not all of them as smart as each other, some of them harder working, some of them more accomplished. But what he meant by scholars and he tells us in this book — and by the way, the reason I asked if you were liberal, this book was called “Essential Reading for Anyone Who Wishes to Understand the State of Liberal Education in America Today” by the New York Times. I’ll wait while you genuflect.

All right, so this is not just some right winged book. That’s what it was called. And he was trying to discover, and he would be presented with scholars. And what he meant by scholars were people who arrived at the university to seek the better: the better literature, the better religion, the better philosophy, the better forms of governments. Suddenly in the 1980s by no coincidence when the first children of the children of the 60s were arriving in school, when the first generation not to have been brought up by those from those of the greatest generation and those were the values that preceded the greatest generation.

It was no coincidence that they arrived in the schools, not only not seeking the better, but denying the existence of the better. And what Bloom concluded was that they were raised to believe — this is the big bullet point. They were raised to believe that indiscriminateness is a moral imperative. That the only way to be moral is to not discriminate between right and wrong, good and evil, better and worse, truth and lies because your act of discrimination – discriminating between these things might just be a reflection of your personal discrimination, your bigotries.

They were raised to believe that indiscriminateness is a moral imperative because its opposite is the evil of having discriminated. The second bullet point, and this is an essential corollary, is that indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policy. It leads the modern liberal to invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success. Why? Very simply if nothing is to be recognized as better or worse than anything else then success is de facto unjust.”

There are scientific reasons to think the universe is young. They just assume things for which there is no actual evidence to explain them, in a circular reasoning type of process. The rejection of non-evolution scientific theories tends to rest on circular reasoning.

I don’t want to start a holiday weekend by arguing with and offending people that I like and respect. I apologize for the previous couple of comments. JD is right, that was beneath me. Sorry. I will work on that in the future.

Have a look at elissa’s post at 1:49 above – it’s makes my point much more eloquently and civilly than I did.

I don’t want to start a holiday weekend by arguing with and offending people that I like and respect.

I’ve nuked about 5 posts on this topic just for that reason. Let me just say this:

I have watched the Republican Party in California go from the party that elected 4 of the last 7 governors, including Ronald Reagan, and voting for Republican Presidents even in Democratic years, to an irrelevance. Mainly because the People moved on in social matters and the party did not.

What was at issue 40 years ago is not at issue now and beating these dead horses every campaign is political suicide. Nationally now as it was 20 years ago in California.

If the Republican Party continues to knuckle under to the diminishing rump of the social conservatives, it won’t have to worry about the fiscal conservatives, libertarians and general small government types splitting off. No more than it was the Republicans splitting off from the Whigs.

What was at issue 40 years ago is not at issue now and beating these dead horses every campaign is political suicide. Nationally now as it was 20 years ago in California.

For most, moral issues aren’t determined by the passage of time, they are the result of ethics, beliefs, and are even moral imperatives. What you are saying then is that people need to be willing to compromise on what is almost foundational for them if they want to see R’s effectively back in the game, no?

I can understand that, however, it’s narrow minded to diminish those values as nothing more than annoying obstacles to a supposed greater good.

For most, moral issues aren’t determined by the passage of time, they are the result of ethics, beliefs, and are even moral imperatives. What you are saying then is that people need to be willing to compromise on what is almost foundational for them if they want to see R’s effectively back in the game, no?

Moral issues, no. Political issues, yes.

I suggest that getting redress through the political system has failed and will continue to fail and attempting to continue to ignore this fact subverts all attempts to accomplish actual political objectives, and ones that you also believe in.

To me, your response is “I’d rather be right than effective” which is the hallmark of a 3rd party, not a big tent one.

Does anyone even deny that the religious right exhibit ignorance and bigotry? It’s kind of their whole reason for being, isn’t it?

I’ll tell you what. You worry about the left, let someone else worry about the right.

townhall.com, Neal Boortz: For the first time in many presidential election years, the word God was omitted from the [Democrat Party’s] platform. The platform also failed to acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Both of these breaks from Democrat Party tradition were reportedly ordered by Obama.

…According to reports, Obama [then] ordered that God and Jerusalem be put back into the platform. That should be easy enough…just introduce an amendment and have the convention delegates approve it by voice vote. Easy enough…right?

According to the rules of the convention, — the RULES, mind you — under which the convention is to be run, a 2/3 majority of ayes over nays would be required to adopt this amendment. Now you have to feel a bit sorry for Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa here. Poor guy. He was actually giving the impression (or it was a pretty good act) that the rules meant something and that it was really going to take a 2/3 majority to approve the amendment.

When the vote was taken the first time it was clear that the 2/3 majority did not exist. So … he asked for the vote again. The second time the nays seemed to be even more powerful. Uh oh. What is the chair going to do here? Durned if it doesn’t sound like the delegates to this convention are not in favor of putting God and Jerusalem as Israel’s capital back in the Democrat platform.

I normally ignore your posts (thanks for putting the line there so they are easy to spot). Just to set you straight – I consider myself “on the right,” so that’s what I worry about. Whether the Democrats have God or Allah or Thor in their platform, I really don’t care.

when even Missouri won’t vote for the rape baby boy there’s a clue that fetus fetishists like Rubio maybe can’t just get away with patently insincere protestations of needing to “focus on the economy” anymore

these people are stale clichés and we all know their idea of a big tent means “watches or has recently watched the 700 Club”… or at least that talk show hosted by the nun lady whatever her name is

Oh, and in my rap songs I totally forgot “You Gots to Chill” by EMPD and “Follow the Leader” by Eric B and Rakim. What a monumental oversight. Turning on Sirius Backspin, opening malt liquor to rectify oversight.

No, I think that is taught in Native American Studies. At least that’s why they made the university bury Kennewick Man. Ask them.

According to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, if human remains are found on federal lands and their cultural affiliation to a Native American tribe can be established, the affiliated tribe may claim them. The Umatilla tribe requested custody of the remains, wanting to bury them according to tribal tradition. Their claim was contested by researchers hoping to study the remains.

The Umatilla argued that their oral history goes back 10,000 years and say that their people have been present on their historical territory since the dawn of time,[17] so a government holding that Kennewick Man is not Native American is tantamount to the government’s rejection of their religious beliefs.

“Name one thing that Christianity helps in terms of government policy.” – the Christianity in government policy helps to protect us against sharia law … and it allows a lot of us to enjoy bacon …

“Does anyone even deny that the religious right exhibit ignorance and bigotry?” – the “religious right” is an artifact of ignorance and bigotry, designed to marginalise and demonise political opponents – those who freely toss around the term “religious right” without putting it in quotes are projecting their own bigotries and ignorance on others …

I have a question for carlitos …

carlitos – which ‘flavour’ of atheist are you ?

Are you the atheist who personally does not believe that any deity exists and believes that others can and must make up their own minds ?

Or are you the atheist who religiously and passionately believes that no deity exists, and, as such, prosyletises and evangelises belief in the religion of zero deities, often to the extent of joining the ACLU in their jihad against Christmas, Nativity scenes, memorial crosses, et cetera ?

And to one and all, may your Thanksgiving be filled with those things and people who are reminders of all for which we can be and are thankful !

I’m somewhere in between, but I’d rather not discuss it in detail right now. I’ve got malt liquor chilling and videos to watch.

Happy Thanksgiving. Let’s never forget that in most places, throughout most of history, conversations like this would have resulted in one of us being killed for his views. And for “her” views, they never would have been heard in the first place. Life is probably as amazing as it ever has been; let’s appreciate it.

Actually, in a way, I would. If you wanted to talk about “what Science is about”, you’d have to come back to the basic questions, such as “Why is there anything at all?” The various creation myths (and other lesser myths like volcano gods) are an attempt to answer these questions through philosophy and/or religion. These questions and their attempted answers are the basis of the scientific quest.

So, yes, as a foundation to the philosophy of science, they have a place. You would also want to look at how well they explain things, and what (if any) questions they leave unanswered. Later you would want to see if Science answers any of these better (or in fact differently).

But if you mean as an equally valid scientific answer, no, as they have nothing but faith to back them up. Evolution has quite a bit or evidence to back it up but it still doesn’t really answer that “Why is there anything?” question.

Jesse Jackson, Jr.’s parting gift to the people of his district and the state of Illinois is a $5 million tab for holding a special election.

With apologies to our friends in Illinois, I love that they are being stuck with the bill. My former rep, Jane Harman, did this to us when she decided right after winning reelection in 2010 that she didn’t want to be part of the House minority party and thus bailed out on us and forced us into a special election to replace her. I am a firm believer that whenever this happens, the Congressional seat (whether House or Senate) should be held empty until the next regularly scheduled election. Exceptions can be made when a Congressional member dies suddenly and maybe if they are appointed to the cabinet, but all resignations should cause that seat to be vacated. Let the people of the district suffer for electing such unserious people to public office.

I am seriously convinced that a large part of our current cultural problems stem from that fact that we teach almost no cultural teaching tales to our children …

There is a reason that (as far as I know) every successful human culture has had its teaching tales which included some form(s) of creation myth as well as flood myth … the teaching tales teach the rules and values of the culture – and the more different and diverse sets of teaching tales one reads and understands, the better equipped one becomes to deal with real-life situations …

Teaching tales, while most often religious, do not have to be … Aesop’s Fables are one example … and the US (and many other nations) could use a better understanding and practice of *not* being “Dog in the manger” in so many situations …

==While a minority, the idea that more than a third of the electorate is “extremist” is laughable horse manure==

SPQR and Dana–I think you both may be misinterpreting the political point I hoped to make upthread. (And it’s obviously my failing that I did not succeed in expressing it in a manner that could be better understood.) It is most certainly not extreme that 30 some percent of Americans profess to be personally pro-life and choose to live their lives that way. Not at all. The perception of extremism to which I refer is that many (including some egregiously vocal and biologically misinformed R politicians as well as some very religious commenters here) in that group of sincere pro-life people appear to feel they have not only the right, but also the duty and the obligation to force their views on other free Americans whose own values and beliefs happen to be different. I firmly believe this is what many voters are reacting negatively to when they see (R) next to a candidate’s name.

Here is what I think the bottom line needs to be going forward: Are the R pro-life pols and their most vocal activist supporters planning to do something immediate to officially and pro-actively change current policy which has been in place for 40 years? If so–they need to be aware that they are apparently in conflict with a majority of current American citizens and are therefore likely to lose elections. If they are not planning to advocate or try to legislate significant change with respect to reproductive rights post- Roe v. Wade, then why don’t they just say they won’t–explicitly–quit making this a litmus test for R candidates, and thereby take this particular issue off the table so maybe we can get some traction on fiscal stuff?

If they are not planning to advocate or try to legislate significant change with respect to reproductive rights post- Roe v. Wade, then why don’t they just say they won’t–explicitly–quit making this a litmus test for R candidates, and thereby take this particular issue off the table so maybe we can get some traction on fiscal stuff?

Comment by elissa — 11/21/2012 @ 4:25 pm

I believe that few of Obama’s supporters would have changed their vote if Romney had advocated a clear pro-choice position. I don’t know if any of the competitive lost Senate seats would have been won if the candidates had been pro-choice except that the MO and IN candidates wouldn’t have made their gaffes, but if they had been more skillful in answering the questions without abandoning their pro-life positions then certainly Akin would have won. I don’t know how the IN race stood before his gaffe.

Pretty funny SEIU fail: they pissed off the public today blocking streets at LAX and pissed off the employees, who have already voted against joining the union. The national president of SEIU was at LAX today, so I guess this is like Custer’s Last Stand or something.

Spontaneous anger over an obscure anti-Islam video titled “Innocence of Muslims” has been widely cited as the cause of the embassy protest in Cairo. But clear evidence shows that these al Qaeda-linked jihadists used clips from that film that were televised on Egyptian television as a pretext to incite a mob…..

The role of al Qaeda’s allies, including Musa, in the embassy protest was documented in a video released by Al Faroq media earlier this month. Al Faroq, which is based in Egypt, is not an official al Qaeda media outlet, but it clearly espouses al Qaeda’s ideology and frequently trumpets the terrorist organization’s message. Al Qaeda has also used clips from Al Faroq’s productions in its own official videos.

The Al Faroq video of the Sept. 11 US embassy protest in Cairo was first obtained and translated by SITE Intelligence Group.

The Al Faroq video attempts to brand the protest as an al Qaeda event…..

But, also:

During his appearance in the video, according to SITE’s translation, Mohammed al Zawahiri calls for the makers of the film “Innocence of Muslims” to be prosecuted and “demand(s) the questioning of all of those and to stop that film that is calling for trouble.”

elissa, democracy is the majority forcing their views on the minority. A republic is a democracy where some set of limitations on the ability of the majority to force their opinion on the minority exist.

A “majority” decided to make me pay a penalty on my taxes if I didn’t buy something they wanted me to buy. Regardless of whether that product violated my religious, moral or ethical beliefs.

A “majority” decided that I can’t shoot people who need shooting. Even if I think the deaths of certain human debris would bring joy to my God and ensure a good growing season next year. Or stop global warming.

A “majority” decided to force me not to rob my neighbors, rape women, assault children or expose my genitals in public outside of San Francisco.

I normally ignore your posts (thanks for putting the line there so they are easy to spot). Just to set you straight – I consider myself “on the right,” so that’s what I worry about.

Carlitos, you can label yourself anyway you want, which is fine with me. But if my posts (which are often mainly snippets from articles that highlight what I think shines a light on various issues) trigger some resentment in you, and if you believe the Republican Party is too rightwing in 2012 — even more so in the context of the mid-point of the socio-economic spectrum having gravitated towards the left over the past 50-plus years — then, okay, you’re a conservative. But a conservative in the eyes of a person surrounded by a culture similar to that which is found in San Francisco, Detroit, Chicago, Austin, Hollywood, Venezuela, France, or a typical university campus in America.

It was one thing to lean left (or to struggle to lean right instead of left) decades ago when a movie like “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?” still seemed relevant and not quaint. Or when parts of the MSM, including Time magazine and the LA Times, were generally of the right, or (in terms of the latter) even notoriously partisan in favor of the Republican Party. When an actress like Ingrid Bergman in the 1950s was shunned (by Hollywood, no less!) because she had a child out of wedlock. But to lean left in today’s era — or to feel conservatism in 2012 is too rightwing — that’s a whole different matter.

Yes. Unfortunately, the “Republican war on women” theme was made an underlying issue in every single state to some degree this year. The ads and robocalls helpfully and scarily reminded people that each Republican elected to congress (no matter how nice they might seem when you meet them) was one vote closer for women to have their “reproductive rights” taken away and return to the dark ages.

So the take away is, keep quiet about the moral beliefs (which naturally inform ones politics to a great degree) if they are considered extreme and/or potentially jeopardize a possible win?

I think there are candidates simply unable to do that because they feel so strongly about it. I think, however, that there is a serious lack of savvy and preparation with those pols in being ready to have a smart, efficient response to the inevitable gotcha questions. Questions that are never a surprise because they are as habitual as WH lies.

Since I don’t have one of those infernal devices (yet) here are my questions: Ddo you not get to see the zany/funny auto correction which has been made to your message before you send the message? Or do you see it but are not allowed by the devil inside to re-correct it manually? Is this something you’re thumb typing, or is it the result of bad voice recognition? Should there perhaps be a low end age limit for people to be allowed access to this technology? (i.e., younger than us?)

Which tenet has been the bedrock of Western thought since David Hume. Its like we’ve lost the genetic drift toward the sapiens for the sake of the homo so what the hell, orderly retreat, we’ll get the bastards with zoonotic infectious disease on the descent back to pond slime.

Yes. Unfortunately, the “Republican war on women” theme was made an underlying issue in every single state to some degree this year. The ads and robocalls helpfully and scarily reminded people that each Republican elected to congress (no matter how nice they might seem when you meet them) was one vote closer for women to have their “reproductive rights” taken away and return to the dark ages.

Comment by elissa — 11/21/2012 @ 5:53 pm

McMahon’s pro-choice so that race proves my point. According to the “if only the GOP got off the social issues” crowd, she should have won. I don’t think abortion was a big issue in MT which is probably a fairly conservative state on social issues anyway.

Volokh had, maybe still has, something where you have 5 minutes after posting to edit your comment and/or correct your typos, but it didn’t work on all platforms. It did on an iMac3, but not in I think Internet Explorer 7 on a networked windows computer.

I’m only using the infernal device post-surgery rehab cuz I can’t maneuver laptop. The touch pad is hyper sensitive- I miss the solid keys and I suddenly feel Ike my fingers are ten unyielding shovels. It’s exhausting copy pasting, and I can see the autocorrect before I send but sometimes miss it because the incorrect word usage isn’t underlined or noted because it’ll assume what you intended, which I find rather rude presumptuous .

I hate saying there might e an age limit to the learning curve of this contraption cuz hub is a bit older than e and took to it like a fish to water. Clearly he does not have shove fingers.

elissa – I had the autocorrect disabled on my phone and my son enabled it. I don’t know how to turn the damn thing back off. Of course, I’m not going to stoop to reading the manual or anything as demeaning as that.

==So the take away is, keep quiet about the moral beliefs (which naturally inform ones politics to a great degree) if they are considered extreme and/or potentially jeopardize a possible win?==

I don’t pretend to know what your take away is and I respect you far too much to tell you how to think. Here is my takeaway, FWIW. Quite simply, what. is. the. point? The right has had 40 years of wandering in the desert over this weighty moral issue. Meanwhile, two whole generations in our country have grown up with Roe v. Wade and legal abortion on demand. If after all this time some in the Republican party are ready to move on the Constitutional amendment (from the platforms) to outlaw abortion in some or all cases, then do it, dammit. Write the legislation and see how far it gets in congress and in the states when it comes down to criminalizing women who would have an abortion or the doctors who perform them. What are the parameters? Lay it all out. What is the punishment to be? Medical licenses pulled? Jail time, fines, other children taken away? Do boyfriends and husbands have culpability and would they be criminalized, too? Could a family member forcibly detain a pregnant woman, put her under 24 hour guard to prevent her from a home-style or back alley abortion? Does it matter if a relative or a rapist fathered the fetus, or if the “mother” is still a child herself?

This is ugly stuff, yes, but I think America deserves to know the answers to these questions. America needs to know what “pro-life” rhetoric actually means to the Republican party in terms of enforcement and how far it might be willing to go in infringing someone else’s rights to protect unborn life. Is it as stark as the Democrats have been warning and scaring people about for years? As a Republican, I deserve to know the answers to these questions, too, so I can decide how I can operate inside or outside the party for all my non abortion political needs.

Also, I wonder about this: If the segment of the R party and the pols and church leaders who are not happy with the current abortion situation are not yet ready to bravely confront political headwinds and deal with the fallout from all I’ve outlined above, (and more) then really what is the point of all the continuing party of life moral outrage and the futile game we’ve been playing while increasingly losing key elections? If not yet and not now, then when? I’m sorry to be vulgar but after 40 years it’s about sh*t or get off the pot time on this issue, I think.

==Of course, I’m not going to stoop to reading the manual or anything as demeaning as that.==

I understand completely! Of course you’re not going to waste your time widdat. I’ve still only made it about 1/3 of the way through the technology system’s manual for my new car. (It’s now 3 years old.) It’s such fun to get lost in a baddish part of St. Louis because you didn’t know how to program the map feature to get you from the restaurant back to the hotel.

I think Rubio gave a great answer. He’s a really sharp guy, and he recognized instantly that GQ was posing a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” gotcha question intended to split GOP primary voters along creationist vs science faultlines, and potentially provide fodder for Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart.

The lefty media are already attempting to make preemptive strikes against Rubio because they know he’s a formidable candidate for 2016.

From Science, 26 October 2012
From News of the Week
“Rogue Geoengineering Experiment”
Apparently an unknown entity, using a converted fishing trawler, dumped about 100 tons of iron dust into an ocean eddy 321 miles west of British Columbia last July. Iron is often a limiting nutrient in open ocean water, and satellites showed a phytoplankton bloom after the iron dumping; however such blooms are also known from ocean water with no artificial fertilization. The short note doesn’t speculate on who dumped the iron or if they took control samples.

This really astonishes me. Why would someone finance such an experiment? (The point being to see if we can use such artificial fertilization to create a CO2 sink in the ocean)

Why not announce it? To avoid the usual counterproductive environmental protest? (most AGW activists really don’t want to find counters to global warming other than shutting down industrial civilization) or to avoid litigation?

Why not announce it? To avoid the usual counterproductive environmental protest? (most AGW activists really don’t want to find counters to global warming other than shutting down industrial civilization) or to avoid litigation?

I think it’s illegal. The environmentalists arranged to have an international treaty against this or something. They’re a couple of steps ahead of everybody else. They saw that loophole a long time ago. Everybody else is late to the game.

A spokesman said the [Canadian Environment] ministry had warned the venture in advance that its plan would violate international agreements…..Mr. Parker, of Harvard’s Kennedy School, said it appeared that the project had contravened two international agreements on geoengineering, the London Convention on the dumping of wastes at sea and a moratorium declared by the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity — as well as a set of principles developed at Oxford University on transparency, regulation and the need for public participation.

serious lack of savvy and preparation with those pols in being ready to have a smart, efficient response to the inevitable gotcha questions. Questions that are never a surprise because they are as habitual as WH lies.

Well, yes. For example, talking about a pregnancy from rape as being a gift from God is probably not well thought out. The better answer is something like:

“I personally disagree with the concept of abortion in almost every case, but as things stand now the thing has been decided. I hope that some day hearts and minds will change — they have before on other subjects — but right now there are other things that are more productive to talk about.”

McMahon’s pro-choice so that race proves my point. According to the “if only the GOP got off the social issues” crowd, she should have won. I don’t think abortion was a big issue in MT which is probably a fairly conservative state on social issues anyway.

Many Republican candidates in California are pro-choice and even pro-gay marriage and OK with “immigration reform”. Consider Meg Whitman who was all of those. Problem is that there is an inertia to public perception; that’s what branding is all about.

@199 SPQR
Agreed, but I inherited the code and my first rule is not to get too drastic when first making changes. It’s difficult enough to not do things like break image uploads. <blush/> It will move soon enough.

First step was the server move and tuning. Next step is to optimize page generation and caching. Then we’ll move on to optimizing the page code.

Seems like what you’re calling for is something like a purge of pro-lifers from the Republican party, along with all their votes, so when a pro-choice Republican runs nobody can point to a pro-lifer anywhere in the GOP.

Rush Limbaugh was talking a few days after the election of the futility of trying to go after pro-choice and pro-amnesty voters by trying to rebrand the GOP, because the Democrats and media would simply not let it happen. They’d find somebody to point to who is still taking the “bad” position on those things. And the GOP would simultaneously be telling the SoCon part of the base, like me, to get lost. It’s a fool’s errand that the Democrats want to see the GOP run off on.

A more intelligent approach is to try to convince young people, Hispanics etc. that the Democrats are destroying their standard of living. And maybe some of the young voters could be convinced that there’s at least a reasonable case for socially conservative positions, if the candidate is sufficiently articulate. For starters the idea that there’s something “extreme” about being pro-life has to be turned around, because it isn’t.

BTW, daleyrocks, once I laundered my Blackberry, I retrograded to a phone I imagine like yours. Sliding keyboard, no internet, but messaging capability to another phone or email. I use that to forward photos from the camera to my computer.
Cosmos LG.

I’ve read Genesis chapters 1 & 2 in English, Greek and Hebrew and I find evolution in the story. First the sea teems, plants cover the earth, then the air is filled with flying creatures, finally hooved animals populate the earth.

Nowhere do I find dinosaur bones in the dust from whence all comes and to which all returns.

Seems like what you’re calling for is something like a purge of pro-lifers from the Republican party, along with all their votes, so when a pro-choice Republican runs nobody can point to a pro-lifer anywhere in the GOP.

No, I’m talking about a very public official party-level change-of-mind. Not agreeing with the idea of abortion, but accepting it as a fait accompli and leaving it be. The issue has been decided, we lost, get over it. Preferably before we wake up some day and find liberty lost forever.

What’s ignorant about the difference between real rape (“rape rape”) and things that are called rape but aren’t?

In some jurisdictions, a 15-year-old boy having consensual sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend is rape. See Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County, 450 U.S. 464 at 476 (1981) (plurality) (noting that the petitioner, challenging a prosecution for statutory rape, was also under the age of consent) See also Michael M., 25 Ca.3d 608 at 621n.4 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 1979) (Mosk, J., dissenting) (noting that the appellant and the complaining witness were “virtually the same age”)

Opting for moderation, behaving Presidential versus the Manchurian gained 4 Million Indies and lost 5 Million conservatives.

And those 5 million Conservatives are either so far off the grid that only a 3rd-party fringe could appease them (and lose everyone else), or they are utterly kicking themselves for letting the communist win.

BTW, are there any of these conservatives here who voted 3rd party or stayed home? I’d like to hear them defend themselves.

Two decades ago, “access” to birth control meant that no law prevented women from getting a prescription for the pill or another contraceptive. “Access” didn’t mean what it means to this administration — no insurance copayments for birth control, even for health plans funded by church-based institutions with deeply held religious objections to birth control.

In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman and denies federal benefits to same-sex partners. The House passed the bill 342-67; 118 Dems voted yes, and the Senate passed it 85-14. Biden voted yes. It was the centrist position in 1996.

In 2008, Obama promised to repeal DOMA if elected. Rather than push for a repeal vote, however, the administration announced last year that the Department of Justice no longer would defend the law against legal challenges. A centrist should support the rule of law, not tempt the courts to topple a law passed by a strong majority in Congress.

all this talk about Republican extremism seems to giver a pass to Democratic extremism.

BTW, are there any of these conservatives here who voted 3rd party or stayed home? I’d like to hear them defend themselves.

Comment by Kevin M — 11/22/2012 @ 9:51 am

I live in a Democratic Precinct in a Democratic Ward in a Democratic City in a Democratic County in a Democratic State. I voted for Gary Johnson, along with 1.2 million of my closest acquaintances. It made no difference on the outcome, other than helping to keep the LP on the ballot for next time.

There’s breaking news every day in the Benghazi/Petraeaus story (not counting the ceasefire with the unwritten pledge to prevent Hamas from importing more rockets)

In March, 2011, Jill Kelley was awarded a silver medal by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It was presented to her by general David Petraeus, who was then the commander of the U.S. Central Command and had recommended her for the reward.

It cited her for “outstanding public service…from October 31, 2008 to May 31, 2010,” noting also her “willingness to host engagements with senior national representatives from more than 60 countries” as well as her work in “advancing various military endeavors.”

It said that “on multiple occasions, Mrs. Kelley invited senior national representatives, their spouses and senior leaders to her home to demonstrate their gratitude and support”

It also said she was “instrumental in introducing the commander, [David Petraeus] early in his tenure, to local and state officials, particularly the mayor of Tampa and the Governor of Florida.”

Still trying to imagine what would make a grown woman with a bright future despite her inadequacies and fudged and slurred resume, send poison pen mails like a 13 yo girl – and thinking this is effective spook technique.

I agree with Dana’s #153. The answer isn’t to give up on values we can’t all agree on. The answer is to find more articulate politicians and to help all of them talk more knowledgeably about the issues. In addition, I don’t think we have to be a party that has all the answers to every problem. We can be a big tent that covers different views, but we have to present them better.

If we’re going to borrow anything from the Democrats, it shouldn’t be their positions or their talking points. What we need to borrow is their willingness to create talking points and trot them out every time certain issues come up. And it wouldn’t hurt to use more women and minorities as spokespersons, not only current GOP leaders but also people like Condi Rice and Allen West.

They were in the wilderness, in 2004, they refused to accept their loss, thanks to the likes of Kimberlin, they were willing to sabotage the military’s efforts in Iraq, demagogue the tragedy, and minimize their incompetence, in Katrina, thanks to Van Jones, among others,

So, if the idea is that we “have to fight for the values we beleive in” no matter how far out of the mainstream they have become, and refuse to censor candidates who insist on speaking their mind about fringe issues, I would imaging that you’d have no problem with a libertarian-wing candidate talking about legalizing heroin, liberalizing sexual consent laws, doing away with public schools and privatizing roads.

Or, maybe you’d say some thing like: “You should maybe wait on those things until the public is more ready to accept them.” Remember, you never heard most of Ron Paul’s crazy.

I don’t think you are talking to me but if you are, then my answer would be that — instead of avoiding difficult topics — conservative/GOP politicians need to work harder at identifying and defending their ideas in the court of public opinion. Specifically, GOP politicians need to think about what they believe, why they believe it, and be able to persistently and clearly explain their beliefs.

My guess is some of their beliefs will change because on further reflection they will realize there are certain basic things they believe but many others about which their views are more flexible. But as to things they really, really believe, they should be able to clearly discuss and consistently defend their beliefs. Not many of them can do that today, where poll-tested ideas are much more popular than value-tested ideas.

Thank you for good wishes. Its been a tough season and as life sometimes goes, the unwanted happens and we’re tasked to work hard towards good health while being mindful to live every day in thankfulness, no matter what we face. The gracious plenty of family and love carries us through.

In addition, when it comes to topics like abortion, my impression is that values-based politicians look for support and/or spend much of their time with people who share their beliefs. That is a good way to reinforce their core beliefs but it doesn’t help them prepare to be challenged in a general election. And, frankly, it doesn’t help them convince people that they’re right — and ultimately that’s the point, isn’t it?

I was reminded today that conservatism is not a political strategy. Republicans are the best vehicle to carry out real-life conservatism, but one has to agree to what fits the conservative bill. If you see abortion as an albatross sinking conservatism in elections, then how do you suggest candidates (national) respond to the question in a debate forum where the undecideds are watching?

Also, the use of terms such as “fringe” or “extremist” with regard to the pro-life faction of conservatives is not only inaccurate, but demeaning as well.

Still trying to imagine what would make a grown woman with a bright future despite her inadequacies and fudged and slurred resume, send poison pen mails like a 13 yo girl – and thinking this is effective spook technique.

I think she probably didn’t. I think it’s more likel that Jill Kelley – or spook associates of hers – sent all those e-mails. (The only way they were traced to Paula Broadwell, is that some – but only some originated from a GMail account she and David Petraeus shared)

The silver medal – the military’s second highest civilian award – came in March, 2011. According to what david Petraeus is reported to have said, the relationship became non-platonic about November 2011 – and stopped as a result of the investigation Jill Kelley triggered.

It’s easy to see how some enemies of David Petraeus at the CIA could have found out about the GMail account.

Undoubtably all communications coming out of CIA headquarters are monitored. This would not only include landlines, but anything wireless. If he used that e-mail account while in the building, the log in information would be captured and saved.

Of course if this is something irrelevant they are not supposed to save any of this information, especially the content, or tell anyone, but if some nontrustworthy person was entrusted with this job, well things would be different.

My best theory is that there is some foreign intelligence agency involved here that pernetrated the CIA and recruited Jill Kelley.

If you see abortion as an albatross sinking conservatism in elections, then how do you suggest candidates (national) respond to the question in a debate forum where the undecideds are watching?

as I said in #203: like:

“I personally disagree with the concept of abortion in almost every case, but as things stand now the thing has been decided. I hope that some day hearts and minds will change — they have before on other subjects — but right now there are other things that are more productive to talk about.”

..To read the newspaper, you might conclude our leaders in Washington have their priorities all wrong. But then comes the news that, according to Jill Kelley, America’s most influential real housewife of Tampa Bay, both our CIA director and the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan took time out of their busy schedules to seek her help stopping the threat posed by Bubba the Love Sponge.

Mr. Love Sponge, for those of you who have missed this glittering chapter in America’s national security history, had announced earlier this year that it was his intention to deep fry a copy of the Quran in animal fats. Apparently, according to the estimable Ms. Kelley, whose three visits to the White House last year almost certainly rank her ahead of many members of Congress or ex-presidents, the potential consequences of the repulsive shock jock’s bit of performance diplomacy would have been devastating for America’s standing in the Middle East. (While that is certainly true, you can’t help but wonder whether policies our leaders apparently are more comfortable with, like invading people’s countries, blowing up their villages, and killing their friends and family might be even more inflammatory.)

Fortunately for America, we have the honorary consul from South Korea, Miss Inviolability herself, Jill Kelley, just one touch of a speed dial button away from our national security brain’s trust. Generals Petraeus and Allen were able to reach out to her, as they had done in the past when other Floridian nitwits had threatened harm to the Quran. She called the mayor of Tampa, to whom she asserted she was acting on behalf of the generals, and sought his assistance bringing the hammer of justice or at least good taste down on the Love Sponge, a man who until recently had been Tampa’s most best-known resident and cultural leader.

As an aside, prior to this bizarro incident in America’s War on Terror, Bubba had most recently made his way into the headlines when it was discovered that his then wife was the sex-tape partner of aging, former wrestler and reality show star Hulk Hogan. Thus it came to pass that the CIA sex scandal and the Hulk Hogan sex scandal somehow merged into one, both part of the seemingly permanent oil slick of sleaze that now floats on the surface of American society.

Fringe with respect to “pro-life” depends on what you mean by “pro-life.” If you mean that you think abortion should be illegal in all situations and anyone involved should be imprisoned as a felon, that would be a fringe belief. To the degree that you have exceptions to that, it becomes less of a fringe.

The 50-60% center position seems to a a mild pro-choice: abortion tolerated in the first trimester and outside of that only for “good reason.” To the degree that tolerance is grudging is the real measure of how well the pro-life position is doing.

Look, I am not saying that Republicans should embrace the abortion status quo, but we have to admit that we have failed utterly in our approach to the issue and that the current regime seems unlikely to change. If we don’t we will continue to seem obsessed.

Pro-life to me means that abortion should not be used as contraception or eugenics (babies with birth defects). I would not make it a crime nor a sin when there is danger of death or great bodily harm to the mother, or for rape or incest. And I would be very gingerly about criminal laws in all cases.

Nothing to see here:President Mohammed Morsi’s decree put himself above the judiciary and also exempted the Islamist-dominated constituent assembly writing Egypt’s new constitution from judicial review. Liberal and secular members earlier walked out of the body, charging it would impose strict Islamic practices.

It’s all good, ’cause he was DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED:Opponents of President Mohammed Morsi have set fire to offices of his Muslim Brotherhood in several Egyptian cities, clashing with his supporters after the Islamist leader assumed sweeping new powers. State TV says Morsi opponents set fire to the offices in the Suez Canal cities of Suez, Port Said and Ismailia.

— Susan Rice has issued a statement claiming that her initial praise of the Arab Spring was based on faulty intelligence.

I’m willing to bet that an investigation would reveal the problem is not that there is faulty intelligence among the Obama Administration, rather, it’s that there is no intelligence among the Obama Administration.

ES – You might be right. Any self-investigation will not conclude, however, that the source of the faulty intelligence is the Obama friends, MB front groups, ideology, and political correctness which have been welcomed into his administration with open arms.

– All laws and decisions by the president are final, cannot be appealed, overturned or halted by the courts or other bodies. This applies to decisions he has made since taking office in June and any he makes until a new constitution is approved and a new parliament is elected, expected in the spring at the earliest.

– No judicial body can dissolve the upper house of parliament or the assembly writing the new constitution. Both are dominated by the Brotherhood and other Islamists and several cases demanding their disbanding were before the courts, which previously dissolved the lower house of parliament.

– The president can take any steps or measures necessary to prevent threats to “the revolution, the life of the nation or national unity and security” or to the functioning of state institutions.

– A new judiciary body of “protection of the revolution” is created to reopen investigations, prosecutions and trials of former regime officials, including ousted President Hosni Mubarak, for the killing of protesters during last year’s uprising. Other police officers accused of killings, however, will not be retried.

— Anyone up for a dose of “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”?

Sammy – Whatever you say. I’m sure ignoring Morsi is why Clinton and Obama continued to publicly denounce the video in public appearances and speeches and even conducted and advertising campaign about it in Pakistan. Plus all those rumors about releasing the Blind Sheik have so far turned out to be just rumors.

As I was pointing out after the election, they were still counting votes and Romney would wind up with about the same national total as McCain. He actually did a little better nationally, as Kimberly Strassel pointed out today, and if CA is excluded his out performance vs. McCain increases. People have to stop saying Romney got 3 million less votes than McCain. Bill O’Reilly just repeated the 3 million less thing last week.

Rather than thinking about changing the pro-life message the Republicans need to think about ways to get more minority voters, as Strassel points out. The obvious place to start is with Asians, a group Bush carried, where Romney got creamed worse than with Hispanics.

SEARCH AMAZON USING THIS SEARCH BOX:
Purchases made through this search function benefit this site, at no extra cost to you.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.